SB 714, 2013 OBC ACCESS BILL "I don't understand the need...Is this for Financial Reasons?"

http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=810

Start at 51:00 for Senator Lucio explaining the bill, (2013's bill was only in the case that the birth parents were dead). Go to 54:40 for Senator Campbell's comments about "financial reasons."
Senator Campbell's respsonse, "Which adoptees [want access]? Where?"

57:00 for Witness testimony by Adoption Knowledge Affiliates, Shirley Dodson &
TX Adoptee Reunion Services, Connie Gray.

2013 Companion House Bill 1014 by representative Susan King.

We remember in our bones

We can't remember
in our heads.
in our homes.
in our beds.
But in our bones,
we remember.

We can't remember
the lands.
the choice.
the hands.
But her voice,
we remember.

Our mind aches,
for what not it knows
But we remember
in our bones.

Copyright 2016 Marci Purcell. May not be used without express permission from the author.

DNA, Social Media, Sealed Records & Myths of Providing Anonymity

So, by now you may have heard the Ancestry.com, FTDNA.com, 23&Me, and GEDMATCH* are all offering very affordable, or free rates for their DNA Testing results. You simply swab a cheek, spit in a tube, or upload a prexisting data file from another company and whala, you are compared to anywhere from 1,000,000 -14,000,000 people depending on the service. If you plunk your DNA into more than one database you are compared to close to 20,000,000 people, and this number is very rapidly rising, daily.

Now, with DNA as the leading way to find long lost family, it is ludicrous to imagine that state governments are spending tons of money to make and keep adoptee records sealed. Spending money? Yes, because this process and all its trappings actually costs the state government money. The staff needed to process the OBC differently, the space needed to keep these files separate, and the work hours of high paid judges and clerks across the Texas, to listen to cases and grant or deny access to those who choose to petition the court. None of these measures, which translate to monetary expenses would be incurred if the records were open to the adoptees to whom they belong, just as they are for the non-adopted. The irony is the money and time IS NOT actually keeping people's identities anonymous, or even private, which people (inaccurately) cite as being the reasoning behind, and result of sealed records. What it is doing is disenfranchizing and perpetuating the stigma of being adopted for the majority of adopted people in this country, and leaving all parties vulnererable to very public searches, because this is what is left to them since records are sealed. Many adoptees would otherwise have no interest in reuniting with birth family, but driven to do so because that is currently the only way to gain access to their own, vital information, including family medical history, ethnicity, and genealogy information. 

Here's how sealed records is having the opposite effect of what some legislators purport:

When the adoptee interested in gaining access to their identity information (ethnicity, birth stats, genealogy) hits the brick wall of sealed records, they then turn to the public commercial sector, with all its social media and DNA tools. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, and Google have all become the perfect venue for finding family. The adoptee simply scrawls down all the private information they know surrounding their birth (non-ID info) onto a posterboard, which is then shareable and they are off to finding family. Eventually a friend, or cousin, or adult child of the birth parent sees the information and makes the connection.  This discovery is usually followed up with a series of awkward phone calls until finally, the birth parent is identified then outed in a very public and unexpected way by their known family members or close friends. Not at all private for the birth parents, nor for the searching adoptee, for that matter.

Usually in tandom with social media, the adoptee does DNA testing, now the fastest way to finding family. As mentioned above, there are many millions of people in the database. I have yet to see someone domestically born test and not have at least a 3rd cousin match to the tester in the past year, and often a 2nd cousin or closer match is probable.  Although some matches may be somewhat distant, this is an amazing feeling for the adoptee; very grounding. To see for the first time ever that you are connected to others on this planet is usually life altering for the individual. To receive ethnicity information, although vague, is profound.

This realization of connectedness and new ethnicity information can be very motivating, and the person with renewed vigor doubles down to solve the mystery of who they are descended from. They "climb the family tree," spending hours researching, asking their new relatives how they could posibly fit in, sharing every shred of information they may have until the mystery is solved, usually through a new aunt, sibling, or cousin. Again, no privacy whatsoever for the birth family, or the adoptee.

And then there are the many who put in their DNA sample only to immediately match a birth parent because they, too are searching. DNA gold! Studies show an overwhelming number of birth parents want to connect, to at least gain some closure or peace about their decision. Some want to thank adoptive parents. For others it is to confirm the well being of their adult children who were adopted out in a different social climate then we have now, so their child, as an adult can gain healing through understanding their birth parent's decision. The DNA enrollment number will be increasing as more and more discover DNA testing as a reliable search tool. The opportunity for this reunion, and to know the whereabouts of their child often provides immense healing to both parties.

An important point I would like to make here is that the government continues to send the message, often in writing, on their website and printed materials, (and squashed legislation attempts by adoptee rights groups), that the sealing of records was implemented to, and will protect the birth parents' right to privacy from adoptees. This is not the impetus for sealed records and in today's day and age sealed records, as shown above, actually jeopardizes privacy for all parties. These old school arguments are simply untrue, especially in today's world.

The fact that birth records are not sealed from the relinquished individual *until* and unless there is an adoption, is telling. I was not adopted until I was 3, so my records remained mine, my original birth certificate served as mine until I was adopted. My given birth name, including my last name, was my legal name until I was adopted at 3. All the while, my birth mother was easily traceable, her identity known. In fact, I continued to posess my social security card with my original name on it after I was adopted. No one ever asked for it back. I grew up knowing my given birth name and date of birth. If the sealed records were meant to keep someone anonymous, why does this information remain the child's until the time of adoption, sometimes years later? Because these sealed records laws were put in place mainly to quell the concerns of the adoptive parents who were fearful of birth parents, not to guarantee the anonymity of the birth parents. I have seen my relinquishment document. There are no rights granted. Only rights taken away. Birth parent anonymity, as a reason for sealed records is only a myth. It was never the actual intent.

These laws are continually upheld on a false premise and rob adoptees of their medical, genealogical, and ancestral information. Imagine walking around in a world full of people and not knowing who you are biologically related to; fearful of dating a cousin or wondering if that woman who looks like you is your sister. Imagine the stress that accompanies that lack of knowledge. Imagine not knowing your ethnicity. It feels like society is playing a cruel trick on us. Family origin information, accoridng to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is a basic human right. Of course it is. Most non adopted can't even insgine what our lives are like. I challenge you to try.

We are asking lawmakers to stop holding our info hostage. We are adult, tax-paying citizens and tired of being treated like children. Adoptees are real people, with decendents, our children, who are also impacted. We are not enjoying this 20th century government supported social experiment, which amounts to systemic discrimination based on the circumstance of our birth. Stop violating our basic human rights and give us our original birth certificates. We are adults asking for what you all already have; equal rights to access our vital record.

Our issue is not about reunions. Reunions are happening everyday with DNA and social media. Our issue is about being treated with equality and diginity under the law. Our issue is about access to our own information in the form of our original vital record. What we do with that information, as adults, is our own business, just like what you do with yours is your business.

An Open Letter to President Obama

An Open Letter to President Barack Obama

March 22, 2016

"...we also need to recognize how much we share. Because in many ways, the United States and Cuba are like two brothers that have been estranged for many years, even as we share the same blood."  -President Barack Obama, Cuba, 2016

 Dear Mr. President;

In today's historic speech from Cuba you chose to invoke the metaphor of two brothers separated from each other, Separated from their kin, Their blood. Their family. This tugs at the core of human emotions. For most people this imagery conjures up feelings of the family they know and love; those blood relatives present in their lives. They envision being separated from them and they are gripped with emotion. The heartache. The longing. The loss. It's all there. So vivid, so real, so identifiable. It is the reason, Mr. President you chose to use this powerful metaphor. It is visceral and compelling. One could almost say it is an inevitable choice of words given the speech's intent, to bring home an important point, the reuniting of two estranged countries.

Americans across all political persuasions have the freedom to identify with your metaphor without guilt, without inner conflict. It is the right of every American, of every human to long for and have a connection with family. Isn't it?

For 2% of the United States population, listening to this speech conjures up different emotions, different visions. You see, adopted people have not been given permission or the right to freely imagine knowing our "blood" family that we "have been estranged from" without feeling guilt or that we are being selfish. If we allow ourselves to even dream of a reunion we have been conditioned by those around us to deaden those feelings, to squash our curiosity, or to feel ashamed of the wanting. The conventional adoption community still places guilt on the curious adoptee who longs to know their original family and discourages us from searching.

If that wasn't a strong enough message, in the majority of states, the government places undue burden and heavy restrictions on adoptees who want to know their families of origin, their brothers, their sisters, their parents if still living, by denying the adult adopted person a copy of their own original birth certificate. Adoptees are not trying to replace the families who have raised them, but for many,  there is a longing to know those with whom we share the same blood. It is at the heart of all humans, but adoptees are made to feel shame for wanting that information. For those of us who push past the shame and guilt, it is usually an expensive, time consuming, emotionally draining process to attempt find our original families, using expensive DNA testing, private searchers, and social media outlets in an attempt to connect.

Although the United States Government does not recognize an adoptee's right to know their origins as a civil right, other entities do. The United Nations outlines identity continuity, as well as maintaining family connections, as the rights a child is entitled to under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified in 1989.*

To hear my country's president include this kinship metaphor in a speech meant to speak to the entire nation only emphasizes a citizen's right to have access to their kin, and underlines the injustice that adoptees do not have the right to this information. How can we confidently assert our voice in U.S. civic life if we are unsure of who we are and where we come from? If our government passively condones the message that we are considered unworthy of the same rights and considerations under U.S. law as our peers? Without that right to know who we are, our other rights feel hollow.

The only other group in the U.S. denied access to their original birth certificates are those entering into the witness protection program, a path they chose for themselves, having been given full disclosure of what rights they are gaining and losing. Access to our original birth certificates is taken from adoptees with no disclosure, no choice on the part of the citizen it effects most. We are stripped of a right without waiving our right. This is quite traumatizing if you are the one experiencing this discrimination, though seemingly easily dismissed by everyone else not effected.

The irony is that the strength in your metaphor is what illustrates it's connection to the fundamental guarantees of our nation; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I wonder if you have used this metaphor unaware that your own country denies this very right to a full 1% of it's population. When you do the math this calculates out to millions of Americans.

I suppose it is easy for many to dismiss 2% of the population and deny us our complete identities, our full compliment of constitutional guarantees. I have more faith in you than in most other people, Mr. President. But for anyone else reading, here is a snapshot of who adopted people are:

We are the 3 month old little boy enduring the initial trauma of separation.
We are the 16 year old still grappling to make sense of the separation that happened sometime in our childhood and wondering how exactly we fit into the world.
We are the 30 year old father holding our precious newborn, overcome with emotion as we meet a blood relative for the first time.
We are the 35 year old woman miscarrying again, as our hope of seeing ourselves reflected back in someone else's face diminishes.
We are the college student, once adopted, then returned and adopted again, only to be abused by our second family, left as adults with nowhere to go for the holidays.
We are the people our government repeatedly tells you are not worthy to have our own original identity. The laws send the message, this is not your right, this is only a luxury to be enjoyed by some, but not by all, and certainly not by you, the adoptee. But we are also the resilient, we are the determined, and we will not stop asking for our identity until we have it in every state, for every adoptee.

Thank you Mr. President for reminding adoptees that the desire for a basic human connection with a blood relative is a normal, natural thing. That we need feel no shame in our desire to search and connect. I invite you, no, I implore you to weigh in on this issue that affects millions of tax paying, adult American adopted citizens. Please join the effort to rectify this situation so the United States can say we are a nation whose laws grant equal rights to 100% of its people.

In gratitude for your service.

Sincerely,

Marci Purcell

Marci Purcell
Board President
Adoption Knowledge Affiliates
www.adoptionknowledge.org
&
Technical Writer
Texas Adoptee Rights

Convention on the Rights of the Child

*Pertaining to child's identity and maintaining family and nationality connections.......
Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

Article 8

1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.

Article 9

1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.

2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.

3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.

4. Where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the detention, imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the State) of one or both parents or of the child, that State Party shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall of itself entail no adverse consequences for the person(s) concerned.

Article 10

1. In accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences for the applicants and for the members of their family.

2. A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents. Towards that end and in accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, States Parties shall respect the right of the child and his or her parents to leave any country, including their own, and to enter their own country. The right to leave any country shall be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary to protect the national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Convention.

Copyright 2016 Marci Purcell: All rights reserved; may be used freely with citation by non-profits and educational institutions. 

Justice Antonin Scalia's written dissent re: Adoptive Couple V Baby Girl

"The Court's opinion, it seems to me, needlessly demeans the rights of parenthood. It has been the constant practice of the common law to respect the entitlement of those who bring a child into the world to raise that child. We do not inquire whether leaving a child with his parents is 'in the best interest of the child.' It sometimes is not; he would be better off raised by someone else. But parents have their rights, no less than children do. This father wants to raise his daughter, and the statute amply protects his right to so do. There is no reason in law or policy to dilute that protection." 

-Justice Antonin Scalia, dissent written for case, Adoptive Couple V Baby Girl.